The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network

The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network (https://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/index.php)

- The 1960 - 1966 Chevrolet & GMC Pickups Message Board (https://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - 283 vs. 350 (https://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=455033)

Need your opinion. I have two engines ...an original 283 195 hp. And I have a 350 LM1 engine. Both have auto trannies. However the 350 tranny had to have a fabbed transmission mount. The frame I want to use came with the original 283. What would you rather have? I am not so worried about power as I am dependability and ease of maintenance. Plus I am not wild about fabbing a new tranny bracket. Let me know.

I bought my bolt in tran mount from LMC for around $85.00. It fit great and works good.I would go with the 350 unless your restoring your truck.

dare to be different man.everybody and their mother has a 350!283's are great dependable engines.and with gas at $5 a gallon by 2012 i dont think you will regret it!just my honest opinion.cheers!

gas is an issue...is it relatively cheap to rebuild a 283

plus I have never heard either run...so I am rebuilding both...

I would take the 283.
Do you know what year it is?

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/...e-vertical.jpg
The debut of the 283 in 1957 marked the end of the 265. Chevrolet went to an new motor mounting system placing the mounts near the freeze plugs on the side of the block. The old system had mounts located on the front of the block at either side of the timing cover.

Since around 1964 most small block Chevys have had two threaded holes at the rear of the block on the drivers side near the oil filter boss. These are to accommodate the clutch counter shaft for vehicles equipt with manual transmissions. Only one of the holes are required. Some vehicles used a counter shaft located approx 6" further to the rear,thus the need for the rear hole. Early blocks have only one hole and are pretty much worthless to a vehicle that require the rear hole for their clutch assemblies.

Before 63, small block Chevy engine used a "Road Draft Tube" to ventilate the crankcase.Featuring a large hole at the top rear of the block inside the lifter valley,these blocks are from the 50's through to the mid 60's. The PCV(positive crankcase ventilation system) replaced the daft tube in 1963.The vent hole disappeared in 68 when the system was redesigned to ventilate through the oil filler tube located at the front of the intake manifold. Later engine ventilated through the valve cover.

In 62 Chevy brought out the Chevy II, or Chevy Deuce. Using an inverted front suspension, the Chevy II had shock towers in the enginebay,which put the steering arms right where an oil pan would go. This little problem was solved for the small block applications (4 and 6 cylinder applications had no problem with this configuration) with a special block with a recessed oil filter boss, and an oil dipstick located on the passenger side. The problem was done away with in 68 with a new chassis and body style. The unique 64-67 blocks are in demand by collectors due to the recessed oil filter boss.

With the debut of the 327 in 62, Chevrolet fans were in heaven. Fitted with its own unique valve cover the featured a flat spot for a decal like "327 Turbo Fire". This design was used until around 1965 and is very popular with collectors today.1956-1967, small block Chevys also used a cartridge type oil filter inside a steel canister, joining other manufacturers in 68 with a spin on style oil filter. There are adapters available to update the older style blocks to the newer style.

Several other changes took place to the small block Chevy in 67. It was the last year of the 283 and the first year of the 350 (Camaro only).It was also the first of three years for the very famous 302 Chevy(283 crank in a 327 block)

Posted via Mobile Device

i know there is some great threads on here about building 283's.a set of 305 heads will solve the unleaded gas issues and yor down the road at 25 miles per gallon!i dont think a basic rebuild would cost any more than a 350!that is what i am doing,again revjim just my opinion.i know there is a lot of 350 lovers out there that are probably ready to take my head off lol.

ok...I too, am leaning toward the 283, because it is just a cool looking motor. What do I do to make it a daily driver? NOT a hotrod...ok, maybe a little. Thanks. Is there a thread?

283..jus cause it a 283..

Quote:

Originally Posted by revjim (Post 4575128)

it is your opinion that is needed for yourself in this instance. you are the one that is going to be driving it. it just depends what you are happy at living with. you will reach your destination just as readily with the 283 as with the 350. just depends on how much that you want to smoke the tires off the light.

do you know the story of the old bull and the young bull standing on the tiop of the hill and there were all these young heifers at the bottom. the young bull says," let's run down and get one"and the old bull says, " let's just walk down and get them all."
ron

i would still go with the 283 and the money you save on fuel i would go and have a big steak!lol

take the original nothing like having the motor your truck came with!

if it's truly the original 283 that came with the truck, i'd go that route...due to moving, i just recently sold the old 283 that i was told came with my truck...the PO said it was using oil badly, so he replaced with a '66 327...but i had no proof the 283 was the original engine for the truck, so i just let it go...my 327 runs great, so i had no plans to replace it...but i agree that it's cool to be different & step outside the box sometimes, so i'd probably go with the 283 if it were mine

283. 283!! (and might just consider having a machine shop take care of hardened valve seats so you can use the original heads also - although the 305 route is another route I hadn't considered, as was mentioned above). At the very least, it's worth having a reputable shop actually test the hardness beforehand - I've had a shop tell my mine had a Rw number that meant I did not need hardened seats - and I never had a problem using unleaded in that motor.

283!!! Vette valve covers!!! WCFBs or Rochester FI!!! Nothing can look that good. Ok, I may be a little biased.

283. I love mine and you cant beat the nostalgic look of the 283 sitting in these 60's trucks!!

For a trans mount for a TH350, just get one from a '63-'87 truck. The frames are basically the same so it will fit just fine. You'll just have to drill the mounting holes once you locate it in the frame.

As for the looks of the 283.....both the 283 and 350 are small blocks. You can easily make a 350 look like a 283. Then there is the usual debate on mpg between small cubic inch small blocks and the 350. Some say the 350 will actually do better since it produces more torque than a smaller engine and thus doesn't have to work as hard to move these heavy trucks down the road.

i would say 283..then again, i still dig flatheads and straight 8's

As far as rebuilding a 283 vs a 350 comparisons go........ Around here, a 283 is a good deal more expensive to build than a 350. The engine rebuild kit alone was around $150.00 more and that is with my discount at our local parts store. I had a mint original 283 that i was gonna build but i soon sold it when i found what it was gonna cost to rebuild. Shortly afterwards, i found a perfect running 70's model 350 that i purchased for $350.00 and it came with all accessories plus headers. Besides the 327, the 283 has always and still is my favorite SBC. I just cannot see spending the extra $ just to say i have a 283.

This is the rebuild kit from Flatlander.com:
Chevy 283 4.6 OHV ('58-67)
NOTE: Rear main seal not included for 1958 engines 1093 5 $372

This is also from Flatlander.com:
350 / 5.7L Chevy (Pass car & Truck)
Chevy 350 5.7 ('67-79) $249

I know this doesn't look like much but by the time you factor in head work, boring, and all the other machine work it really adds up. The cheapest total (out the door) parts and machine work prices i could find were:

283- $1569.00
350 - $997.00

And i still had to do all the assembly myself. Maybe in other places than Texas this might be somewhat cheaper but here in East Texas these are the going rates. Also, there is not hopped up stuff here. Everything was quoted as being stock components.

It didn't sound as if it's the original engine to me, but if it was I would keep it. Otherwise I would go with the 350. The rebuild kit for a 283 does cost more, but any machine Shop I have been to charges the same for any small block chevy.
Posted via Mobile Device

remember that the 283 is a short stroke engine & the 350 a long stroke. that means that to get any performance from the 283 the truck needs to be geared deeper than it would be for a 350. so that being said there may not be any economy fuel wise to be gained with a short stroke engine. also trying to o/d short stroke engines causes the power enrichment system in the carb to think it is climbing a hill so it opens due to lower vacuum & there goes more fuel. like was said before, it is all in what you want. the engine, trans & rear axle are all a system that needs to be properly matched. now, 350s have their place, but i luv 283s! power pack heads, rochester 4-jet carb, 350 hp hyd cam, 4spd t10, 3.73 posi & let it wind!
andy

use the 283 but upgrade the rods. was told these are it weakest rods of the chevy v8 engines. I know cause I broke one on my daily driver that I did not abuse at all. Will see if I can find the pics of the rod I broke.

350. More torque. Less cost. Modern PCV system.

Also is the 283 tranny a powerglide?

how do I tell what tranny I have...what ID am I looking for??

Having this same internal question now! Love this site.

Bone stock 283 in my 57.
Th350 transmission
Rear end out of 79 trans am ( still not sure on the gears, need to open it up)

It drives fine. No leaks or smoke. Seems I have read these engines like running at higher rpms. Gas mileage is around 10 mpg, which is horrible.

Is this a good combo?
Is the mpg way out of wack?

Bring forth your opinions. I'm not a mechanic so all thoughts would be great.
Posted via Mobile Device